In those instances, it is incumbent upon the party who contends the evidence was improperly excluded to make a proffer; and if the party fails to do so, that party cannot contend such exclusion was erroneous. Rogers v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 05-459 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06), 921 So.2d 1076, 1078. Without a proffer, an appellate court cannot ascertain the nature of the excluded evidence.
However, an appellate court has no authority to consider evidence presented for the first time on appeal. Rogers v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 05-0459, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06), 921 So.2d 1076, 1081. Thus, we are unable to consider any documents attached to Williams' appellant brief that were not admitted into evidence at trial.
Whether a child is dependant on an employee's compensation award is a finding of fact. Rogers v. Wackenhut Serv., Inc., 05-459 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06), 921 So.2d 1076.Our Louisiana Supreme Court, in Chaisson v. Cajun Bag Supply Co., 97-1225, p. 9 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 375,380, stated the following: Factual findings in worker's compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.
If the defendant asserts a surviving spouse is not living with the deceased at the time of injury or death, La.R.S. 23:1255 applies and the spouse must establish he/she "was then actually dependent upon the deceased spouse for support." La.R.S. 23:1255; Ceco, 836 So.2d 164; Rogers v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 05-459 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06), 921 So.2d 1076. "If the spouse is unable to show that she (or he) was living with the deceased, she may still be entitled to compensation if she succeeds in establishing the fact that she was wholly or partially dependent upon him . . . Thus the concept of living with the deceased at the time of the accident or death has acquired considerable importance, and has been the subject of a great deal of litigation." 14 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Workers' Compensation Law and Practice ยง 304 (4th ed.)